LIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article
|
|
- Jasmin Elliott
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE As a service to Jenner & Block's clients and the greater legal community, the Firm's Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law practice maintains this online resource center that offers the latest case law and other developments in Environmental Cost Recovery & Lender Liability. Please also visit the Firm's Corporate Environmental Lawyer Blog for current developments in this area. Jenner & Block will update this web page with new developments and items of interest as they become available. For further information, please contact Partner Gabrielle Sigel. Full Article June 2009 Related Practices Environmental and Workplace Health & Safety Law CERCLA Case Law Developments Tenth Circuit: PRP Cannot Recover More than CERCLA Response Costs On May 29, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that when a PRP seeks contribution under CERCLA 113(f), the PRP cannot rely on the collateral source rule to collect amounts exceeding its response costs after settlement with other parties. Friedland v. TIC-The Indus. Co., 566 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2009). In Friedland, plaintiff, the former owner of an abandoned mine, settled 107 CERCLA claims brought by federal and state authorities by paying more than $20 million in response costs, and expending more than $28 million in legal costs defending the government s cost recovery action. Friedland then brought claims against other parties, including insurance companies, and settled those claims, recovering more than the $20 million he had spent in response costs. Friedland then brought this CERCLA 113(f) contribution action against two other parties involved with the mine. These defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Friedland had no damages to recover based on his recoveries in other cases. The district court agreed and Friedland appealed. Friedland argued that, under the collateral source rule, payments received from other parties could not be credited against his claims against these CERCLA defendants. The court held that the common law collateral source rule did not apply to a PRP s CERCLA contribution claims. The rule, which allows a tort victim to receive more than the cost of its injury, had no application to the equitable cost allocation scheme applicable to claims among PRPs under CERCLA 113(f). Friedland also argued that the more than $20 million he already received should be allocated to his legal fees and not his response costs, in order to demonstrate that he had unrecovered response costs to pursue in this case. The court refused to allocate the previously received payments to legal fees, finding that the prior settlement agreements did not direct payment solely for legal fees. Thus, defendants were entitled to a credit for the full amount paid by other
2 parties for the same environmental damages. Because defendants could not be liable for legal fees under CERCLA 113(f), after crediting Friedland s previous recoveries, there were no damages for him to pursue in this case. Therefore, the trial court s grant of summary judgment to the CERCLA defendants was affirmed. AOC s Stipulated Penalties Does Not Bar CERCLA Statutory Penalties for Breach of AOC On June 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that U.S. EPA can seek statutory civil penalties under CERCLA, in addition to stipulated penalties, for a party s failure to comply with a CERCLA Administrative Order on Consent ( AOC ). United States v. SB Bldg. Assocs., Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D.N.J. Jun. 1, 2009). In SB Bldg. Assocs., SB, as site owner, entered into an AOC after U.S. EPA found contamination at a site. The AOC had certain deadlines and other requirements, which U.S. EPA claimed were not met. In October 2008, U.S. EPA brought a federal suit against SB under CERCLA 106(b)(1), 107(a) and 107(l), seeking U.S. EPA s response costs, civil statutory penalties of $ 32,500 (the statutory maximum), stipulated penalties under the AOC, and a lien on the site. SB moved to dismiss U.S. EPA s demand for statutory penalties. SB argued that U.S. EPA had no right to statutory penalties because the AOC provided for stipulated fines, at a much lower rate. U.S. EPA argued that the clear terms of the AOC allowed it to seek CERCLA statutory relief in addition to the AOC s stipulated penalties. Reading the AOC, the court agreed with U.S. EPA s argument, and held that the government s complaint pleaded sufficient facts which, if true, would justify the relief requested. As a result, the court denied the motion to dismiss. Federal Investigation Constitutes CERCLA Removal Barring Clean Water Act Citizen Suit On June 2, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held that the U.S. Forest Service s investigative actions at federally-owned land constitutes a removal action that, under CERCLA 113(h), eliminates the court s jurisdiction to hear a Clean Water Act citizen suit for discharges from that land. Wash. Envtl. Council v. Mount Baker-Snoqualmie Nat l Forest, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (W.D. Wash. Jun. 2, 2009). In Wash. Envtl. Council, plaintiff environmental group brought a Clean Water Act citizen suit against the Forest Service, as the current owner of several abandoned mines, for allegedly contaminated discharges from those mines. In 2006, the Forest Service argued in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that, pursuant to CERCLA 113(h), the court had no jurisdiction because the Clean Water Act suit constituted a challenge to a selected CERCLA remedy. CERCLA 113(h) provides that a federal court does not have jurisdiction to review any challenges to removal or remedial actions selected under [ 104 of CERCLA]. At that time, the court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the Forest Service s activities prior to 2006 were too preliminary to constitute remedy selection under 113(h). After conducting further investigative activities, the Forest Service again tried to eliminate the claim by filing a motion for summary judgment, asserting a
3 remedy had now been selected and federal jurisdiction barred. On this second try, the court agreed with the Forest Service. The court first found that the Forest Service s actions were pursuant to CERCLA 104, and not CERCLA 120, the latter of which addresses U.S. EPA s remediation on federally owned Superfund property. Because the mines were not on the NPL and the actions were being taken by an agency other than U.S. EPA, 120 did not apply. The court then found that a response action indeed had been selected even though (1) the Forest Service had only conducted the equivalent of an RI/FS; (2) no particular response action had been selected for the mines; and (3) the Forest Service s investigative study allowed for a no action alternative. Refusing to follow the Seventh Circuit s decision in Frey v. EPA, 403 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2005), the court stated that, based on the Ninth Circuit s decision in Razore v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 66 F.3d 236 (9th Cir. 1995), a removal action includes evaluative activities such as those under an RI/FS. The court held that the Forest Service s actions here, which were akin to an RI/FS, constituted a 104 removal action. Finally, the court found that plaintiff s lawsuit is a prohibited challenge under 113(h), even though plaintiff is not a PRP, because it seeks an order related to the goals of the cleanup. Razore, 66 F.3d at 239. Thus, the court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service and found, pursuant to CERCLA 113(h), that it had no jurisdiction to address plaintiff s lawsuit. Destruction of Samples Leads to Preclusion of Contamination Evidence On May 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut held that when a consulting firm hired by a CERCLA plaintiff to take soil samples did not preserve the samples or the analytical data, and the property was remediated before other parties could sample, plaintiff is precluded from offering any evidence based on the destroyed samples. Innis Arden Golf Club v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D. Conn. May 21, 2009). In Innis Arden, a property owner discovered and subsequently remediated PCB contamination on its property. Plaintiff had hired consultants to conduct onsite testing and eventually remediate the property, under a retention agreement that specifically recognized that cost recovery might be pursued against third parties. Plaintiff then brought a CERCLA cost recovery action against neighboring property owners. Pursuant to the consultant s document and sample retention policies, electronic data packages (other than sampling results) and the samples themselves were destroyed prior to and in the early stages of the litigation, and were not produced to opposing parties. Pitney Bowes, one of the defendant PRPs, moved for sanctions against plaintiff for failing to preserve that evidence. The court found that plaintiff s expert s destruction of this information and physical samples constituted spoliation of evidence in contravention of federal law. Moreover, plaintiff s argument that Pitney Bowes had no intention to rely on this evidence at trial was found to be of no consequence because plaintiff breached its
4 duty to preserve the evidence and Pitney Bowes did not waive its right to examine that evidence. The court held that plaintiff s action deserved a severe sanction, amounting to more than an adverse inference at trial. Id. at *31. As a result, the court ruled that plaintiff could not use in any pre-trial or trial proceedings any evidence based on the samples it destroyed. RCRA Case Law Developments First Circuit: RCRA Preliminary Injunction Cannot Order Full Remedy On June 19, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that remediation is not appropriate relief for a plaintiff securing a preliminary injunction under RCRA. Sanchez v. Esso Std. Oil Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS (1st Cir. Jun. 19, 2009). In Sanchez, plaintiffs are owners of a gasoline station at which Esso owned three underground storage tanks ("USTs") and at which Esso supplied petroleum products to be stored in the USTs. After discovering contamination on their property, plaintiffs brought RCRA claims against Esso alleging breach of RCRA s UST regulations and imminent and substantial endangerment. Upon filing suit, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction which, after a two-day hearing, resulted in an order requiring Esso to conduct and pay for an environmental assessment and all necessary... corrective actions, and removal of all pollution.... Id. at *3. Esso appealed, raising two jurisdictional challenges to the RCRA claims and seeking to modify the preliminary injunction because it imposed a final remedy without the benefits of a full trial. The court agreed with Esso that the preliminary injunction order went too far and remanded the case to the trial court. First, the federal appellate court rejected Esso s jurisdictional arguments. The court found that plaintiffs gave appropriate pre-suit notice of their claims because, by alleging that the disposed petroleum products were a hazardous waste, the 60-day, rather than 90-day, notice provisions applied. The court also found that the State s separate action against Esso relating to MTBE contamination from gasoline did not constitute a state enforcement action precluding plaintiffs lawsuit here. Specifically, the court noted that the State s MTBE litigation against multiple petroleum companies, service station owners, and others, differed in scope, contaminants, and regulatory violations from plaintiffs claims relating to their property, even though the remedy in plaintiffs case could address a portion of the concerns in the State s MTBE case. Finally, with respect to the scope of the preliminary injunctive order, the appellate court held that the trial court s order violated the limitations of a preliminary injunction proceeding under federal law. Id. at * The trial court s proceeding should not have decided ultimate liability; instead, it should have taken such action to preserve the status quo before a full trial on the merits. Therefore, the appellate court reversed that portion of the preliminary injunction order that addressed Esso s liability beyond conducting the site assessment, and remanded the case to the trial court
5 for further proceedings. In those proceedings, the trial court is to consider requiring plaintiffs to post bond for any portion of the order which obligates Esso to pay money. NFR Letter Not Grounds for Dismissal of RCRA Suit On June 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a property owner who obtained a no further remediation ( NFR ) letter cannot dismiss a RCRA suit for contamination which allegedly migrated to adjoining property. Snellback Props, L.L.C. v. Aetna Dev. Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (N.D. Ill. Jun. 9, 2009). In Snellback Props., Aetna purchased a property in 2005 that formerly had dry cleaning operations onsite. Prior to that purchase, Aetna obtained an NFR letter from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency relating to the property. Two years later, Snellback purchased an adjacent property and discovered contamination on its land that allegedly originated from Aetna s property. In July 2008, Snellback brought suit against Aetna for trespass and nuisance in state court. While the state case was pending, Snellback filed its RCRA citizen suit in federal court seeking to compel Aetna to address the Snellback property. Aetna moved to dismiss the federal action on several grounds. First, Aetna argued that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because the NFR letter mooted the RCRA claim. The court held that the RCRA claim is not moot because, at best, the NFR letter: (1) releases Aetna from state law, not RCRA liability, and (2) provides prima facie, not conclusive proof that Aetna s property, but not Snellback s, is clean. After finding lack of mootness, the court also denied Aetna s request to abstain under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800 (1976), because the property is not under state jurisdiction, the state case is in an early stage, and plaintiff s claim is based on federal law. Finally, the court held that the NFR letter does not preclude a RCRA claim based on imminent and substantial endangerment. The court found that the NFR letter is not conclusive proof that a property is free of all hazards, thus, there was no basis to dismiss Snellback s RCRA claim. RCRA Default Judgment Ordered as Sanction for Discovery Violations On June 5, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, in response to what it determined were extraordinary discovery abuses by the defendant in a RCRA citizen suit case, entered a default judgment against the defendant West, L.L.C. v. Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co., 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS (S.D. Ind. Jun. 5, 2009). In this case, 1100 West brought a RCRA citizen suit against Red Spot, a nearby property owner, seeking abatement of a plume that included solvent contamination. Through all of discovery and pre-trial proceedings, Red Spot repeatedly denied historical use of certain solvents. However, on the eve of trial, 1100 West received certified documents from U.S. EPA in response to a FOIA request, which indicated that Red Spot had historically used those solvents. In response to 1100 West s emergency motion, the court delayed trial and extended discovery, including waiving Red Spot s
6 attorney-client and work product protections West then moved for sanctions, specifically a default judgment against Red Spot. After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that, under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court s inherent authority, 1100 West was entitled to the sanction of a default judgment. The court noted that this sanction can be imposed after a clear record of willful behavior or fault, which includes objectively unreasonable behavior. Id. at *72. The court found that Red Spot s behavior was contumacious, willful, and egregious, Id. at *94, particularly because its representatives testified under oath that solvents were not used, contrary to known information. The court imposed sanctions finding Red Spot liable under RCRA, requiring it to take all action to remediate the solvent plume on 1100 West s property, and ordering Red Spot to pay 1100 West s legal fees relating to discovery and the sanctions proceedings. State Case Law Developments Pennsylvania: Indemnification Does Not Establish Successor Liability On June 11, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that an indemnification agreement in an asset sale does not subject the purchaser to successor liability for CERCLA purposes. United States v. Sunoco, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E.D. Pa. Jun. 11, 2009). In Sunoco, AR sold property to Sunoco in In 1992, AR and Sunoco settled disputes regarding terms in the sale agreement, through a settlement agreement. In that settlement agreement, Sunoco agreed to defend and hold harmless AR from claims relating to remediation of the property. Meanwhile, the U.S. detected petroleum contamination at a federal facility that it traced to the former AR, now Sunoco, property. The U.S. brought suit under state statutory environmental and other laws to recover its cleanup costs from AR and Sunoco. Among the federal government s claims was that Sunoco was liable as AR s successor for the cleanup costs. Specifically, the U.S. argued that the settlement agreement established Sunoco s successor liability for AR s previous activities at the site. The court ruled against the U.S. as to Sunoco s successor liability. The court noted that a company acquiring property can be held to have successor liability if that company assumes the seller s liability. However, examining the terms of the language of the settlement agreement between AR and Sunoco, the court held that Sunoco s indemnity did not contain an express assumption of liabilities. Instead, noted the court, Sunoco undertook solely to defend and indemnify AR. Absent an express assumption of liability, Sunoco could not be held to be a successor. As a result, the court granted Sunoco s motion for summary judgment and denied that aspect of the government s claim.
Citizens Suit Remedies Can Expand Contaminated Site
[2,300 words] Citizens Suit Remedies Can Expand Contaminated Site Exposures By Reed W. Neuman Mr. Neuman is a Partner at O Connor & Hannan LLP in Washington. His e-mail is RNeuman@oconnorhannan.com. Property
More informationLIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article
ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE As a service to Jenner & Block's clients and the greater legal community, the Firm's Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law practice maintains
More informationDETERMINING DAMAGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES IN THE WORLD AFTER BURLINGTON NORTHERN
DETERMINING DAMAGES IN ENVIRONMENTAL CASES IN THE WORLD AFTER BURLINGTON NORTHERN By Diana L. Buongiorno and Denns M. Toft In 2009, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern
More informationLIBRARY. CERCLA Case Law Developments ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE. Full Article
ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY & LENDER LIABILITY UPDATE As a service to Jenner & Block's clients and the greater legal community, the Firm's Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law practice maintains
More informationLIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT This LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL INDEMNITY AGREEMENT is entered into as of the day of, 2008, by Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US ("Indemnitor") and
More informationThe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 42 U.S.C.
SECURING CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION IN PRIVATE PARTY CERCLA LITIGATION: A Case Study of United States of American and the State of Oklahoma v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Western District of Oklahoma,
More informationNo. 94 C 2854 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Agricultural Excess & Surplus Insurance Co. v. A.B.D. Tank & Pump Co., 878 F. Supp. 1091 (1995) No. 94 C 2854 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS NORDBERG, District Judge.
More informationAssessing Costs under CERCLA: Sixth Circuit Requires Specificity in Complaints Seeking Prejudgment Interest. United States v. Consolidation Coal Co.
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 11 Issue 3 2003-2004 Article 6 2004 Assessing Costs under CERCLA: Sixth Circuit Requires Specificity
More informationEnvironmental Cost Recovery & Lender Liability Update
Editors: Gay Sigel and Phoebe Scott A Publication of the Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law Practice April 2011 CERCLA Case Law Developments Service Station Owner May Be Liable For Prior Owner
More informationRCRA Citizen Suits in a Post-Cooper Era
1) Introduction RCRA Citizen Suits in a Post-Cooper Era By Carter E. Strang The United States Supreme Court shook the world of environmental law with its decision in Cooper Industries Inc. v. Aviall Services
More informationEnvironmental Obligations in United States Bankruptcy Actions: An Analysis of Two Key Issues
6 April 2018 Practice Groups: Environment, Land and Natural Resources; Restructuring & Insolvency Environmental Obligations in United States Bankruptcy Actions: An Analysis By Dawn Monsen Lamparello, Sven
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 2:14-cv-01843-GCS-CMV Doc #: 78 Filed: 06/29/17 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 892 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. MICHAEL DeWINE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationRCRA Citizen Suits: Key Defenses and Interpretive Trends
ACI s Chemical Products Liability & Environmental Litigation April 28-30, 2014 RCRA Citizen Suits: Key Defenses and Interpretive Trends Karl S. Bourdeau Beveridge & Diamond, P.C. kbourdeau@bdlaw.com 1
More informationColorado s Hazardous Waste Program: Current Activities and Issues
University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getting a Handle on Hazardous Waste Control (Summer Conference, June 9-10) Getches-Wilkinson Center Conferences, Workshops, and Hot Topics
More informationALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Law
229 ALI-ABA Course of Study Environmental Law Cosponsored by the Environmental Law Institute and The Smithsonian Institution February 4-6, 2009 Washington, D.C. Private Party Litigation Under RCRA By Daniel
More informationNotwithstanding a pair of recent
Preserving Claims to Recoup Response Costs During Brownfields Redevelopment Part I By Mark Coldiron and Ivan London Notwithstanding a pair of recent U.S. Supreme Court cases, the contours of cost recovery
More informationCOMMENTARY. The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework. Case Background
August 2014 COMMENTARY The New Texas Two-Step: Texas Supreme Court Articulates Evidence Spoliation Framework Spoliation of evidence has, for some time, remained an important topic relating to the discovery
More informationToxic Torts Recent Relevant Decisions. Rhon E. Jones Beasley, Allen Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
Toxic Torts Recent Relevant Decisions Rhon E. Jones Beasley, Allen Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. I. Introduction Toxic tort litigation is a costly and complex type of legal work that is usually achieved
More informationPolluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819
1 Polluter Pays Doctrine Underscored: Section 99(2) of the EPA Applied: Some Thoughts on Midwest Properties Ltd. v. Thordarson, 2015 ONCA 819 Some Thoughts by the Lawyers at Willms & Shier Environmental
More informationEnvironmental Settlements in Bankruptcy: Practice Pointers for the Business Lawyer. A. Overview of the Bankruptcy Process
Environmental Settlements in Bankruptcy: Practice Pointers for the Business Lawyer By Jeanne T. Cohn-Connor, Esq. 1 For business lawyers, the intersection of environmental law and bankruptcy law raises
More informationThe Permissibility of Actions for Response Costs Arising After the Commencement of a RCRA Citizen Suit: A Post-Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
University of Chicago Legal Forum Volume 1997 Issue 1 Article 22 The Permissibility of Actions for Response Costs Arising After the Commencement of a RCRA Citizen Suit: A Post-Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
More informationDecember 15, In Brief by Theodore L. Garrett FOIA
December 15, 2016 In Brief by Theodore L. Garrett FOIA American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 836 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2016). The Eighth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing a reverse Freedom
More informationand the Transboundary Application of CERCLA:
American Bar Association Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Section Toxic Torts and Environmental Law Committee Reaching Across the 49 th Parallel: The Origins and Transformation of Canada/U.S. Environmental
More informationWhen New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination
When New Data Give Way to Claims Over Old Contamination By Steven C. Russo & Ashley S. Miller April 17, 2009 One of the most significant hazardous waste issues in New York and elsewhere over the past few
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. v. No DRH. MEMORANDUM and ORDER. I. Introduction and Background
Blue Tee Corp. v. Xtra Intermodal, Inc. et al Doc. 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BLUE TEE CORP. and GOLD FIELDS MINING, INC., Plaintiffs, v. No. 13-0830-DRH
More informationDOCUMENT RETENTION ISSUES FOR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL
DOCUMENT RETENTION ISSUES FOR IN- HOUSE COUNSEL Rebecca A. Brommel BrownWinick 666 Grand Avenue, Suite 2000 Des Moines, IA 50309-2510 Telephone: 515-242-2452 Facsimile: 515-323-8552 E-mail: brommel@brownwinick.com
More informationWATER CODE CHAPTER 7. ENFORCEMENT
WATER CODE CHAPTER 7. ENFORCEMENT SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 7.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Commission" means the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (2) "Permit" includes
More informationCourthouse News Service
FILED 2008 Aug-12 AM 10:26 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationCase: Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/05/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No.
Case: 08-2252 Document: 31 Date Filed: 03/05/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2252 OLIN CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, P.H. GLATFELTER COMPANY,
More informationUnited States v USX Corp.
1995 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-23-1995 United States v USX Corp. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 94-5681 Follow this and additional works
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, ) Case No.: 1:10 CV 2871 ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. ) THE LUBRIZOL CORPORATION, et
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
1 1 1 1 1 1 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Richard Montevideo (BAR NO. ) Eric Dunn (BAR NO. ) Anton Boulevard, Fourteenth Floor Costa Mesa, California - Telephone: 1-1-0 Facsimile: 1--0 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE
More informationEnvironmental Cost Recovery & Lender Liability Update
Editors: Gabrielle Sigel and Michael R. Strong A Publication of the Environmental, Energy and Natural Resources Law Practice July 2009 CERCLA Developments Plaintiff Native American Tribe Not Person Subject
More informationAnalysis of the Conflicts Between Environmental Law and Bankruptcy Law
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 2 Analysis of the Conflicts Between Environmental Law and Bankruptcy Law Laura M. Dalton Dennis F. Kerringan Jr. Repository
More informationChapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS. In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of
Chapter VIII SUPERFUND LAWS In the aftermath of Love Canal and other revelations of the improper disposal of hazardous substances, the federal and state governments enacted the Superfund laws to address
More informationCost Recovery: Lawyers As A Plus?
Cost Recovery: Lawyers As A Plus? Environmental l Toxic Tort l Litigation 812 Huron Road l Suite 650 Cleveland, OH 44115 216.621.1312 1335 Dublin Road l Suite 216A Columbus, OH 43215 614.849.0300 www.mdllp.net
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
AK Steel Corporation vs Prologis Inc., et al Doc. 144 AK STEEL CORPORATION, Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS v. Case No. 15-9260-CM PAC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
More informationSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL In the Matter of: ROMIC ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 2081 Bay Road East Palo Alto, California 94303-1316
More informationContamination of Common Law
Contamination of Common Law The Challenges of Applying the Statute of Limitations to Private Nuisance, Trespass, and Strict Liability Claims in the Context of Environmental Law By: Lauren A. Ungs INTRODUCTION
More informationORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 23, 2014.
Case 92-30190-RAM Doc 924 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 20 ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 23, 2014. Robert A. Mark, Judge United States Bankruptcy Court UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN
More informationMEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND REGION 6 OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I. Purpose MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND REGION 6 OF THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Main Document Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION IN RE: MISSION COAL COMPANY, LLC, et al. DEBTORS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Chapter 11 Case No. 18-04177-11
More informationCERCLA Liability After Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. Reducing Cleanup Liability and Recovering Remediation Costs
presents CERCLA Liability After Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. U.S. Reducing Cleanup Liability and Recovering Remediation Costs A Live 90-Minute Teleconference/Webinar with Interactive
More informationUNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH: OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARILY INCURRED COSTS
UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC RESEARCH: OF SETTLEMENT AND VOLUNTARILY INCURRED COSTS Mark Yeboah* INTRODUCTION In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
More informationUS V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com US V. Dico: A Guide To Avoiding CERCLA Arranger Liability?
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 4:98-cv-00406-BLW Document 94 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Case No. CV-98-0406-E-BLW Plaintiff, ) ) MEMORANDUM
More informationPRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible Parties
Presenting a 90 Minute Encore Presentation of the Teleconference/Webinar with Live, Interactive Q&A PRP Contribution Claims Under CERCLA Strategies for Cost Recovery Against Other Potentially Responsible
More informationCase 1:13-cv TPG Document 21 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 15 : : : : Defendants. :
Case 1:13-cv-07740-TPG Document 21 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------x : SUPERIOR PLUS US HOLDINGS, INC.,
More informationChapter 10: An Analysis of Toxic Tort Property Cases Filed, and Their Outcomes
Chapter 10: An Analysis of Toxic Tort Property Cases Filed, and Their Outcomes by Robert A. Simons, Abdellaziz el Jaouhari, and Jesse D. Saginor I. Introduction This chapter reports on legal outcomes for
More informationSupreme Court Clarifies Rights of PRPs to Recover Cleanup Costs from Other PRPs, and the United States
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS JUNE 13, 2007 Supreme Court Clarifies Rights of PRPs to Recover Cleanup Costs from Other PRPs, and the United States By Steven Jones Putting an end to two-and-a-half years of uncertainty
More informationA Guide to Monetary Sanctions for Environment Violations by Federal Facilities
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 17 Issue 1 Winter 1999 Article 3 January 1999 A Guide to Monetary Sanctions for Environment Violations by Federal Facilities Charles L. Green Follow this and additional
More informationFourth Circuit Summary
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 29 Issue 3 Article 7 Fourth Circuit Summary Samuel R. Brumberg Christopher D. Supino Repository Citation Samuel R. Brumberg and Christopher D.
More informationPreparing for and Negotiating or Defending Civil Environmental Enforcement Actions
Preparing for and Negotiating or Defending Civil Environmental Enforcement Actions Robert Brager rbrager@bdlaw.com 410-230-1310 Laura McAfee lmcafee@bdlaw.com 410-230-1330 I. The Prologue: Rules, Permit
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Nos. 18-1522 & 18-2880 LAJIM, LLC, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeals from the United
More informationCERCLA: To Clean or Not to Clean - The Supreme Court Says There is no Question. U.S. v. Atl. Research Corp.
Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Spring 2008 Article 9 2008 CERCLA: To Clean or Not to Clean - The Supreme Court Says There
More informationDo Consumers Have Private Remedies for Violations of the Reporting Requirements Under the Rules of the Consumer Product Safety Act?
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 19, Number 4 (19.4.50) Product Liability By: James W. Ozog and Staci A. Williamson* Wiedner
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, UNPUBLISHED July 29, 2014 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 314336 Ingham Circuit Court STREFLING OIL COMPANY, STREFLING LC No.
More informationThe CERCLA's Daily Penalty and Treble Damages Provisions: Is Any Cause Sufficient Cause to Disobey an EPA Order?
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 11 Issue 2 Spring 1994 Article 4 April 1994 The CERCLA's Daily Penalty and Treble Damages Provisions: Is Any Cause Sufficient Cause to Disobey an EPA Order? Patricia
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Innis Arden Golf Club, : Plaintiff, : : v. : Case No. 3:06cv1352 (JBA) : Pitney Bowes, Inc., et al., : Defendants. : RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DOCS.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-16-170-R ) LAND O LAKES, INC., and ) CUSHING, OKLAHOMA ) BROWNFIELDS,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS 1031 LAPEER L.L.C. and WILLIAM R. HUNTER, Plaintiffs/Counter- Defendants/Appellees, UNPUBLISHED August 5, 2010 APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION October 7, 2010 9:00 a.m. v No.
More informationUnited States v. Waste Industries: Federal Common Law and Imminent Hazards
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 1984 Article 6 September 1984 United States v. Waste Industries: Federal Common Law and Imminent Hazards Paul L. Brozdowski Follow this and additional works
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking ) Association, as successor-in-interest to LaSalle ) Bank National Association,
More informationIn re Chateaugay Corp.: An Analysis of the Interaction Between the Bankruptcy Code and CERCLA
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 12 5-1-1992 In re Chateaugay Corp.: An Analysis of the Interaction Between the Bankruptcy Code and CERCLA Thomas L. Stockard Follow
More informationSolving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Solving the CERCLA Statute of Limitations and Preemption Puzzles Lessons From Recent Decisions for Timing in Superfund and Environmental Litigation
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES KOTROUS, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINES AS THE MATTRESS FACTORY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOSS-JEWETT COMPANY OF No. 06-15162 NORTHERN
More informationEnvironmental Case Law Update
Environmental Case Law Update John Georgakopoulos Partner, Certified Specialist in Environmental Law by the Law Society of Ontario Law Firm of the Year for Environmental Law in The Best Lawyers in Canada,
More informationCase 2:03-cv EEF-KWR Document 132 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:03-cv-00370-EEF-KWR Document 132 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA HOLY CROSS, ET AL. * CIVIL ACTION VERSUS * NO. 03-370 UNITED STATES ARMY
More informationExpanding the Reach of the Bankruptcy Code's Automatic Stay Exception: City of New York v. Exxon
Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 7 1992 Expanding the Reach of the Bankruptcy Code's Automatic Stay Exception: City of New York v. Exxon Mark D. Chiacchiere Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/elj
More informationscc Doc 697 Filed 08/16/12 Entered 08/16/12 10:23:11 Main Document Pg 1 of 11
Pg 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- x In re: : Chapter 11 : GETTY PETROLEUM MARKETING INC.,
More informationEnvironmental Citizen Suits: Strategies and Defenses
Environmental Citizen Suits: Strategies and Defenses Tom Lindley August 2008 Topics Federal laws create options for citizen suits CWA, CAA, RCRA, TSCA, ESA, etc. Initial investigation and evaluations Corrective
More informationOctober Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
OCTOBER 25, 2013 E-DISCOVERY UPDATE October Edition of Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ORDER
Case 2:13-cv-00274-EJL Document 7 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO ST. ISIDORE FARM LLC, and Idaho limited liability company; and GOBERS, LLC., a Washington
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. HENRY R. DARWIN, Director of Environmental Quality, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. HENRY R. DARWIN, Director of Environmental Quality, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. WILLIAM W. ARNETT and JANE DOE ARNETT, husband and wife,
More informationRCRA Citizen Suits and State Courts: Jurisdictional Trap after Davis v. Sun Oil Company
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Winter 2001 Article 3 January 2001 RCRA Citizen Suits and State Courts: Jurisdictional Trap after Davis v. Sun Oil Company A. Mark Segreti Jr. Follow this
More informationJune s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery
JUNE 22, 2016 SIDLEY UPDATE June s Notable Cases and Events in E-Discovery This Sidley Update addresses the following recent developments and court decisions involving e-discovery issues: 1. A Southern
More informationCase 5:00-cv FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6
Case 5:00-cv-01081-FB Document 26 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION FILED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
More informationFinal Judgment on the Merits
June 4, 2016 Does the Equitable Doctrine of Res Judicata Apply to a Bankruptcy Court Order Approving a Settlement With a Bankruptcy Trustee, Thus Prohibiting a Second Lawsuit by a new Bankruptcy Trustee
More informationCommonwealth of Pennsylvania D v. Beazer East Inc
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-2-2014 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D v. Beazer East Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket
More informationDebtors. LIMITED OBJECTIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK TO DEBTORS MOTION FOR AN ORDER APPROVING SALE OF ASSETS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al. Debtors. Case No. 09-50026 (REG) (Jointly Administered) LIMITED OBJECTIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
More informationManaging Environmental Liabilities: Case Law Update. SMART Remediation Toronto, ON January 28, 2016
Managing Environmental Liabilities: Case Law Update and Case Studies Jacquelyn Stevens Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers LLP SMART Remediation Toronto, ON January 28, 2016 SMART is Powered by: www.vertexenvironmental.ca
More informationEnvironmental Questionnaire
SBA Loan Number: Environmental Questionnaire Applicant Name: of Site Visit: Name/Title of Person Doing Site Visit: Site Name or Business Name: Site Street Address: City, State, Postal Code: County: Site
More informationFEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES
594 638 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and sentenced the appellant to the bottom of the advisory range. A sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Schrempf, Kelly, Napp & Darr, Ltd. v. Carpenters Health & Welfare Trust Fund, 2015 IL App (5th) 130413 Appellate Court Caption SCHREMPF, KELLY, NAPP AND DARR,
More informationTHE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer
TAB 1 THE SIX-MINUTE Environmental Lawyer The Latest on Damages for Continuing Nuisance Bryan Buttigieg, C.S. Miller Thomson LLP October 20, 2016 Six-Minute Environmental Lawyer 2016 The Law Society of
More informationREMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Seminar Presentation Rob Foos Attorney Strategy o The removal of cases from state to federal courts cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States; it is purely statutory
More informationCleaning Up: Equitable Considerations in the RCRA Citizen Suit Provision Controversy
Cleaning Up: Equitable Considerations in the RCRA Citizen Suit Provision Controversy MICHELLE KOK MORITZ' INTRODUCTION The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA") governs the generation,
More informationCase 3:16-cv CWR-FKB Document 66 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 6
Case 3:16-cv-00034-CWR-FKB Document 66 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF V. CAUSE
More informationExpediting Productive Reuse of Superfund Sites: Some Legislative Solutions for Virginia and the Nation
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 20 Issue 2 Article 3 Expediting Productive Reuse of Superfund Sites: Some Legislative Solutions for Virginia and the Nation Scott C. Whitney Repository
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION: MONMOUTH COUNTY DOCKET NO. MON-L APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT
Stuart J. Moskovitz, Esq. 819 Highway 33 Freehold, NJ 07728 (732) 431 1413 Pro Se Township of Manalapan, vs. Plaintiff Stuart Moskovitz, Esq., Jane Doe and/or John Doe, Esq. I-V (these names being fictitious
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:-cv-0-DMR Document Filed0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 LORD ABBETT MUNICIPAL INCOME FUND, INC., v. JOANN ASAMI, Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s). / No. C--0
More informationCleaning Up the Mess, or Messing Up the Cleanup: Does CERCLA s Jurisdictional Bar (Section 113(H)) Prohibit Citizen Suits Brought Under RCRA
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 22 Issue 1 Article 4 9-1-1994 Cleaning Up the Mess, or Messing Up the Cleanup: Does CERCLA s Jurisdictional Bar (Section 113(H)) Prohibit Citizen
More informationS04Q2099. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. The first question certified by the Eleventh Circuit in this case is whether
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 7, 2005 S04Q2099. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LOWE S HOME CENTERS, INC. FLETCHER, Chief Justice. The first question certified by the Eleventh Circuit in
More informationEnvironmental Law - In Re Jensen: Determining When a Bankruptcy Claim Arises in the Context of Environmental Liability
Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 1 Ninth Circuit Survey Article 17 January 1993 Environmental Law - In Re Jensen: Determining When a Bankruptcy Claim Arises in the Context of Environmental
More informationPollution (Control) Act 2013
Pollution (Control) Act 2013 REPUBLIC OF VANUATU POLLUTION (CONTROL) ACT NO. 10 OF 2013 Arrangement of Sections REPUBLIC OF VANUATU Assent: 14/10/2013 Commencement: 27/06/2014 POLLUTION (CONTROL) ACT NO.
More informationLAMAR F. JOST Partner P F
Partner jost@wtotrial.com P 303.244.1905 F 303.244.1879 EDUCATION University of Wyoming College of Law, J.D., 2002 Order of the Coif Wyoming Law Review, Comment Editor University of Wyoming, B.S., 1999,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA PEBBLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY, et al., ) ) No. 3:14-cv-0171-HRH Defendants. ) ) O
More informationNationwide Mutl Fire v. Geo V Hamilton Inc
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2-1-2011 Nationwide Mutl Fire v. Geo V Hamilton Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2329
More informationIn this case we must decide whether Kentucky law or Illinois law governs a lawsuit arising
Third Division September 29, 2010 No. 1-09-2888 MARIA MENDEZ, as Special Administrator for the Estate ) Appeal from the of Jaime Mendez, Deceased, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
CHRISTINE WARREN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit October 18, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
More information